memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Federation history ;Federation history: Self nomination: After I've majorly expanded and rewritten this article, I started a peer review in July 08. The first attempt to get it featured a couple of months ago was not successful, however. Nevertheless, the article has further matured and grown over the months and I've addressed all mentioned issues. I think it's finally ready to take the test... --36ophiuchi 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC) :Needing some feedback please ;-) --36ophiuchi 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :Support. Well written and informative article. – Tom 11:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :Support. A good article. Links lots of stuff together. --Pseudohuman 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :Comments: Needs some touch-ups. It's definitely a good start, and while I corrected several formatting/spelling issues, to me it looks like it needs a good peer review (by Renegade54, Sulfur or Shran) to correct some other little things I've noticed (redundant links, grammar, formatting, several piped links that hide key terms that should be more visible). I don't have a lot of time this afternoon to implement this, but I do have a few suggestions for expansion, organization: 1) I am unsure if it is really necessary to get so in-depth with the Temporal Cold War/Xindi thing. A lot of that is/belongs in the Earth history page, or perhaps in the prehistory, such as the friction it caused between Archer and the Vulcans for not helping, and the Andorians misdirected attempt to assist Earth while at the same time serving their own needs. 2) I also think something could be added about the Polaric Test Ban Treaty and the Neutral Zone Treaty/Nimbus III experiment in the 23rd century, in terms of relations with the Romulans, as that information seems to be lacking from both here and the main article. 3) Other notes: Nothing about their involvement in the Klingon Civil War; a bit more could be said on the first contact between the Dominion and Federation surrounding ; and finally (for now), there is a complete lack of reference to the Maquis, a group that created something of a schism in the Federation. --Alan 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks a lot Alan for your comments. Actually there is a peer review of the article which I've already added in July 2008... As you can see it went unnoticed like so many peer reviews... The only place constructive criticism is issued seems to be here... As for the grammar bit: Although I'd tend to say that I'm more or less fluent in English, I'd definitely prefer a native speaker having a look on the article again. --36ophiuchi 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :::Adressed items 1) and 2) on your list so far. The Neutral Zone Treaty is hard to include in such a historical article, as we do not know when it was signed, by whom or what its exact content was. --36ophiuchi 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :Comment. This is a minor issue, but the section "The future" needs to be rethought. According to our point of view all of those events are actually in the past. And the first paragraph in that section seems like speculation. Perhaps rewrite that first paragraph, move it under the "24th century" header, then rename "The future" section to something like "25th century and beyond"?– Cleanse 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Nominations with objections World War III ;World War III: I'm typically not one to nominate stuff around here, but taking into account the vast effort and discussion that went into honing this article to a fine point, this article is by every definition of the term a collaborative effort. Despite this article's modest size and the lack of actually being there for this conflict, there has been over a dozen decent references to this subject, which have been more than adequately pieced together to build a stable foundation for this article that flows smoothly from the Eugenics Wars to First Contact. --Alan 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC) :Support - The article is, IMO, detailed enough to be considered a featured article and the length seems adequate. A very informative article, with all references to WWIII included, as far as I can tell. The references page serves to add as evidence to the time and effort gone into creating this article. -- TrekFan Talk 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) :Support - A well written article. Seems stable enough as well. Great gob! ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC) :Support - the article combines much the scattered canon evidence to make a quite engaging narrative. I agree that an incredible amount of effort has gone into this article, and this is certainly amongst the best articles on MA for that reason. – Cleanse 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ::Comment - No one else? I'd hate for this to lapse with no oppose votes...– Cleanse 11:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ::: You vote support but are encouraging oppose votes... --Alan 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ::What? I was commenting that it would suck for this vote to fail because of lack of votes, rather than any opposition.– Cleanse 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ::: Well...then you probably meant something more like "I'd hate for this to lapse without receiving enough support votes" vs. "I'd hate for this to lapse with no oppose votes." The latter sounds like a call for oppose votes rather than more support votes. --Alan 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ::Sheesh, it was just poor phrasing. I intended to write something like "I'd hate for this to lapse when it has no oppose votes", or "I'd hate for this to lapse, with no oppose votes". ::I already clarified my comment; no need to keep arguing. Especially when it's pretty damned obvious I was just calling for more votes. – Cleanse 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ::: Chill holmes...wow. --Alan 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :Support: Well written by Alan. I wish I had the skill to work on a collaborative effort such as that.--Tim Thomason 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :Support. The Background section is really written in a non-encyclopedic form. Lines like It was clearly an understatement, and one is left to wonder what O'Brien saw that was more "rough" than nuclear war and the 600 million casualties of World War III. and the second paragraph is very speculative and such (the last paragraph is fine). The rest of the article is great and I support FA pending what I feel are poorly written Background notes. (If everyone disagrees anyway I'll withdraw) — Morder 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :Conditional Support. I'll second Morder's comment. --31dot 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :: The first paragraph is written based on vague information following a visit to a period that would have been smack dab in the middle of the war (that may or may not have happened in that timeline) summed up by an asinine and understated comment (which implies the war really wasnt that bad)...without going into indepth analysis of this and that, without speculating about how it is possible SanFran wasn't involved in the war, etc.. --Alan 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :Temporary Oppose (please dont hurt me!): Very fine article. The only thing I feel it is lacking is an apocropha section speaking on the various mentions of World War III in the big Star Trek non-canon material most important of which would be the Pocket Books and any of the major comic book series. If it had that, along maybe with a picture or two in the background section, this would be untouchable as a very fine Featured Article. :: An apocrypha isn't an article requirement by any means on MA, especially to be featured, that's why MB exists. (Unlike the case for the Eugenics Wars, there is no novel series dedicated to that era, just bits and pieces that are, again, already covered at Memory Beta. Also, there is a picture in the bg section, and really, it's the only one of any relevance for the article... --Alan 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :I didnt know that. Quite interesting. No comic books or novels about World War III. You'd think that there would be! That's fine. Lets just put that info in the section (i.e. other than "Federation" World War III is hardly discussed in literature) and then this is fine to go. -FC 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :: That would be pretty self evident by the lack of information alone. And again, MB covers this topic too, we have a link to there. --Alan 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC) :I give permission for my oppose vote to be stricken out by anyone who feels this matter has been/is already addressed. This is since I might not be able to check this page that often and would not want this minor point to hold things up. -FC 18:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC) OPPOSE'I object to the lumping of every act of violence and conflict between the mid 2020s and 2050s into one gigantic World War III, which properly should be the final nuclear holocaust. I also find trying to wrap Col Green's "genetic purity" movement around both ends of the war problematic, as it seems clear to me that given ALL evidence, his "genocidal war" was a POST WW III event, and may not have been a true "war" at all, so much as mass murder and mayhem.Capt Christopher Donovan 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) :Given that i'm pretty sure that stated that his actions took place during the war I'd say that it was indeed part of WW III. But I'd have to watch the episode again to be certain. :Looks like I was wrong. — Morder 21:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ::'Comment: Capt. Donovan, despite your objection to it, it is, nonetheless, canon. Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean all that happened in 2026, but it was what led to it. Nonetheless, his "genetic purity" movement is lumped together with World War III, just as it is in the article. So I'm not entirely sure how we can change that to your liking. --From Andoria with Love 07:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC) ::: Yeah, I got to say, the first sentence really does explain the whole thing rather well: "...the era of World War III was a period of global conflict on Earth... that eventually escalated into a nuclear cataclysm and genocidal war... over issues that included genetic manipulation and Human genome enhancement." --Alan 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC) ::: So how long exactly do we have to await an acknowledgment. This type to "stall" -- the "snuff it out by not responding" comment, certainly isn't in the nomination policy. --Alan 06:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC) :Support --Pseudohuman 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)